Well you haven't heard mine.
If you kill them (immediate execution), it is impossible to get any societal compensation. You are doing an injustice to the people they have offended.
the tax payers are charged outrageous taxes.
We need something like Norway, but totatly self-suppporting.
The only person on SciForums who thinks Syzygys has ever "won" a debate about this issue is Syzygys.
Well, why don't we ask the victims first?
I told you I have heard it already. This is the "life in prison is cheaper than the DP" argument, and I already addressed above. First, it is only true in silly countries like the USA, second, we could make them cheaper, if that is a concern.
Now if cost bothers you, we could close all prisons too...
Speaking of Norway, would you give more than 23 years to that serial murderer?
And what do you think the correct punishment would be for the OP's killer?
Syzygys said:
And why can't a case/solution be both?
And why would that be a problem? If only murderers can kill...
By the way we are here talking about one specific case, not generally. But you tell me about 5 decades in prison and how does that effect the psyche....
Look to the parts of the world that still suffer blood feuds. Vendetta has only dug those societies deeper into the ditch.
I think you can get satisfaction like that in China, Iran, Syria, and maybe half a dozen to a dozen countries thereabouts.Well, I advocate the death penalty in other crimes, like treason, severe body damage to multiple people, serial rapist, white collar crimes when the monetary damage is very high, etc.
You mean you don't care whether the executed person committed murder or not, so my assumption that you did is moot.So your argument that I only want in against murderers doesn't stand
So the rules of military law are to be left as they are, but the rules of criminal law are to be made more severe? I think that gets us back to square 1.and the soldier analogy is simply just flawed, because there are different rules in wartime...
Has the identity been disclosed of the government official who faked the interrogation with the Iraqi colonel, resulting in a false report of WMDs (the evidence Colin Powell took to the UN)? I've forgotten, it's been so long.By the way, if a government official knowingly takes his country to war under false pretenses, that is treason and should be punished by death. Can you find cases from the not so distant past???
This is the "life in prison is cheaper than the DP" argument, and I already addressed above. First, it is only true in silly countries like the USA,
Prison is a place "of punishment" not "for punishment", so you can't cut cost in a punitive way. Prisoners are legally classified as "persons" and therefore protected under the 14th Amendment, so they can not be subjected to "cruel and unusual punishments" (5th Amendment). This means you have to provide all prisoners adequate food, clothing, shelter, sanitation and hygiene, medical care and protection from violence perpetrated by other prisoners or guards. This has been laid out more precisely in Supreme Court decisions, where prisoners have successfully sued for serious harm done to them in prison. (Crimes you would execute their perpetrators for). These Supreme Court decisions form a body of rules that affect the minimum cost of incarceration. Most prisons are already operating below those requirements and thus they are routinely dragged into court for enforcement. Most recently was the State of California, which was effectively executing prisoners by lack of safe housing and denial of medical care.second, we could make them cheaper, if that is a concern.
To lower the cost, you need to reduce the amount of time people are serving, provide more probation and parole and lighter sentences.Prisons could cost us zero!
I think it was Thurgood Marshall who said "it is better to let 99 guilty men go free than to condemn 1 innocent man". Today, we find that the zeal to "lock 'em up and throw away the key" has reversed that ideal, leaving many innocent people to face life or even the death penalty, unless they happened to leave their DNA behind, and even then in many cases they will have served decades.I would never let a guilty person go free.
Reform will make prison costs higher, because you will have to tear down all the hell holes and death pits that the courts have written injunctions against, that still operate. You'll have to treat vile and dangerous men with a minimal degree of humanity, and it will double costs. Plus you probably won't have the stomach for it.But, I would reform prisons to make them costless to the taxpayer
Are you aware that most prisoners must work for no pay, with none of the protections (eg OSHA) afforded free people, and yet they usually get no credit for this towards winning parole? The idea is not to rehabilitate them, but to run the prison from free labor. It's another reason you won't cut cost. Unless you're planning to pay your prison laborers they can't even pay to support their own families, much less the crime victims. The only way you can expect them to earn money is to release them. However, they will come back to a world penniless and without any useful skills, because prisons can't afford to prepare them for reentry, and becaue no one wants to hire them. Cost, you see, never was an objective. Not in the mind of the criminal and not in the mind of the State.and provide a true rehabilitation to the prisoner, which would result in them compesating victimes and society (overall not happening today). Punishment will never do that.
Northern and Western Europe seems to have worked though the idea of retribution and they seem to worry more about fundamental fairness, civil rights, humane treatment and rehabilitation of their prisoners.I think Norway has set such a great example
That would be fundamentally opposite of the punishments in the US. Wherever there is a wall, there will be violence, cruelty and neglect because you can't see what's being done to these people, and the guards know it. I assure you they will never get a comfortable private bedroom. That alone will never happen.A wall that separtes us from him. He gets a comfortable private bedroom. He gets a job. (I don't care if he drinks a beer at night or smokes a j). I just want him psychologically balanced enough to work, so he can either pay the family of the man he killed or if they don't want it, have that money go to prevention efforts aganst crime.
I guess those are noble ideals, but no prison system will agree to it because of cost, and because they want no outside investigations or involvement. As for the wall: until when? Are you aware that the overwhelming majority of paroles are denied, even for model prisoners?
- A wall between us, and,
- The most desireable enviroment inside it to promote highest level of societal compensation.
exactly.. . . he will be insane in 20 years, . . .
what mercy did he show his victim?A bullet to the head would be way more merciful, . . .
So society and the justice system should lower its standards and morals by having the same standards as criminals have?what mercy did he show his victim?
So society and the justice system should lower its standards and morals by having the same standards as criminals have?
justice disappoints vendetta, and vendetta exceeds justice.
Why not ask Reason?
Prisons could cost us zero!
I'm not saying that, and if you are suggesting it, it's not a good idea.
I would never let a guilty person go free.
You are bloodthirsty.
You let your emotions overrun your reason.
exactly.
i would then put it before the world for all to see.
what mercy did he show his victim?
I think you can get satisfaction like that in China, Iran, Syria, and maybe half a dozen to a dozen countries thereabouts.
You mean you don't care whether the executed person committed murder or not,
So the rules of military law are to be left as they are, but the rules of criminal law are to be made more severe?
As you criminalize more, and especially as you expand the ways people can be legally executed, the more desperate perpetrators become, and the greater the likelihood they will execute witnesses.
I think it was Thurgood Marshall who said "it is better to let 99 guilty men go free than to condemn 1 innocent man".